Popdose - Latest Comments in No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

BobCashill — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:59:52 -0000

I mean, "Most of it."

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

BobCashill — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:58:24 -0000

Most lf it.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

Matt Braynard — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:40:45 -0000

How much of your soul is left after writing a piece like that?

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

rwcass — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:25:55 -0000

"It doesn’t help that an early bit of courtroom heroism on the DA’s part is so poorly staged by Nolan that I kept thinking it was some sort of setup."

I completely agree. If I hadn't read your review before seeing the movie, I would've expected some sort of bribe to be handed to Harvey Dent by Eric Roberts's character in the second half of the film. No one in the entire courtroom reacts when the gun is pulled out! No time for reshoots?

The movie was too long, but I liked it. I didn't think it suffered from "villainitis" like "Spider-Man 3" or the three Batman movies that came out in the '90s, but a friend of mine noted that Harvey Dent probably had more screen time than Bruce Wayne/Batman if you counted up their scenes. Ledger was scary and funny, but am I the only one who thought he licked his chops a little too much? It lost its potency after a while.

To me the biggest acting disappointment was Maggie Gyllenhaal. Her voice made her sound like a college intern, not an assistant DA. When she was cast, people thought she'd be a big improvement over Katie Holmes, but I didn't think there was much of a difference. Granted, "The Dark Knight" is a boys' club, and the Rachel Dawes character isn't that well-defined to begin with, but I still expected something more from Gyllenhaal.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

Thomm Quackenbush — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:36:00 -0000

Nestor Carbonell also played Bat Manuel on the live action version of The Tick, tying things together nicely.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

Elaine — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:13:38 -0000

I just got home from seeing it. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who didn't particularly enjoy myself at this movie. It wasn't bad, but it disappointed me. It was definitely too long. I looked at my cell phone when there was 40 minutes left. Some of the goings-on were plain silly. I still don't have a good grasp of just what was up with the money and Hong Kong and nefarious mobsters of various token skin tones and nationalities. Totally agree about Harvey Dent (and the actor who played him). Also agree about Heath. He was really very good in the role, but I couldn't think what lisping actor he was channeling. Was that Cagney?

To me, a central theme ended up being that there's always information in this life that You Just Can't Handle. Someone always keeps you in the dark. Gordon nanny-states the city as police commissioner, Batman keeps Two-Face to himself, Alfred keeps Batman in the dark about Rachel. (I didn't follow the comic: wasn't Two-Face supposed to be a nemesis that more people realized was a nemesis? And since when is Batman an enemy of the citizens of Gotham?) Oh well.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

BobCashill — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:55:16 -0000

Same Bat-feeling I had about the length.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

Matt — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:37:02 -0000

I thought the first two acts were very well done, but the last 45 minutes or so should have been a second movie. There's a perfect half-resolution/half-cliffhanger at about the 1:45 mark, and the last act has far too many plot holes and feels a bit rushed compared to the rest of the movie.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

drcastrato — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:31:27 -0000

I liked it. I'd agree there were a couple scenes and plot points that felt forced or unnecessary, but the overall tone and message of right and wrong and inbetween came across well.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

DwDunphy — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:12:55 -0000

It's not going to be for everybody. It's really dark and it is shot through with tension and violence. It is a comic book movie, but there's nothing light about it.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

DwDunphy — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:11:46 -0000

Shows me to argue with the guy who does the movie column!

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

Amerimnos — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:49:43 -0000

I saw dark knight and don't think we saw the same movie...I really liked the turn and turns this movie, director, writers, actors took. See the movie and decide for yourself

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

BobCashill — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:18:39 -0000

Nolan's a Brit, with dual US/UK citizenship. And a fine director of mysteries, a lost art anymore at the movies. But he and Bryan Singer are at the top of the comics adaptation food chain now.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

DwDunphy — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:02:13 -0000

Geek vandalism? Crap. Now I've heard everything. I can imagine them, lathered in a maddening rage, attacking people in a mall with a comic book papercut frenzy.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

DwDunphy — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:58:49 -0000

Haven't seen it yet so I can't go toe to toe with you, but I think I'll appreciate it more than you did. After the constant slam-bang of "The Incredible Hulk", I could use a little more verbiage.

If I have any difficulty with your piece it is that I believe Nolan is from New Zealand, not England, but it's a minor quibble. I live in New Jersey and damned if I could find Parsippany on a map...

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

BobCashill — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:26:52 -0000

I put mine up on RT now. But I'm more interested in what the group here has to say. By all means, go, and we'll have opinion slugfests and deathmatches. I warn you, though: My shaolin is better than your shaolin.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

jefito — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:49:10 -0000

My Rotten Tomatoes superiors have spent the week putting out flames in the comments sections of all the negative reviews at the site. Batfans have their own brand of vigilante justice, apparently.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

JonCummings — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:40:29 -0000

Yeah. I think Bob should have been paid at least...25 bucks for this review. He'll need it, just for dental after the Batfans fuck him up.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

BobCashill — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:13:15 -0000

Much obliged. I've got my Bat-armor on, ready to do battle with the graphic novels geeks (I say "geeks" with love). I hear they'll be burning me in effigy at Comic-Con, along with Joe Morgenstern, David Denby, and the other "haters." Come and get me.

Re: No Concessions: “The Dark Knight”

David_E — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:51:29 -0000

What fun to read this was. Great review, Bob!